I heard that Bush is trying to get rid of Social Security. Is it true? I'll be pissed if that happens because that's what I live off of.
He wants to privatize it, not eliminate it. And for once, he's right. Social security is simply not sustainable as the demographics of the nation shift more and more toward an older population. At the very least, the program needs to be completely restructured so that social security taxes are saved rather than spent immediately on someone else's benefits.
Social Security does need some changes made, but it is by no means an "immediate crisis" like Bush wants us to think. If nothing is changed, there will be enough to pay full benefits through 2040, and 80% of benefits for 20 years after that. So yes it needs some changes, but privitization benefits wall street, not the American people. There are a number of changes that could be made that would "save" social security without privitizing it. First would be raising the cap on the amount of income that someone pays SS on. Right now it is $200,000. So the wealthiest Americans only pay into SS on 200,000 dollars of their income, even if their income is substantially higher than that. The second change would be to raise the age at which someone begins to recieve benefits by a few years. Either or both of these would "save" social security from the "immediate crisis" that doesn't exist... Privitizing social security will benefit big business, not working people, and that is in addition to costing trillions of dollars to set up. Once again, Bush is lying to the American people, there is no crisis, and privitization is not a good solution. Sam
This is not true, and is based on the assumption that a social security trust fund exists. In reality, all of the surplus social security money the government should have been saving for the past 70 years has been spent on other government programs. The only thing in the trust fund are IOUs from one arm of the federal government to another. Social security will start accumulating deficits like every other government program by 2020. It benefits both. Lower taxes for everyone, more cash available for investment or consumerism, and fewer people at the mercy of the federal government for their retirement check. These changes, while not bad ideas, still don't solve the underlying problem with social security: SS taxes are spent immediately instead of saved on the assumption that someone else will pay your SS benefits. As the population continues to grow older, this is not sustainable. The only ways to fix that are to privatize the system or completely restructure it. Given the government's long track record of fiscal irresponsibility, I'd be more confident in the former. You're right that it will cost a lot to privatize (approximately $1 trillion). However, the cost of inaction is even higher. A simple look at demographics will show the dire straits the program is in. The ratio of retirees to taxpayers is becoming larger and larger, and this trend is not likely to change. Believe it or not, there have been creative solutions proposed for generating the necessary $1 trillion, that don't involve raising taxes, cutting other programs, or increasing the debt. The Libertarian Party's solution is my favorite: the US government can auction off some of its unused military bases in foreign countries, which are worth between $10-15 trillion.
privatizing social security will lead to it being a huge corrupt institution like the Insurance organizations... itll be something only the rich can really afford... thats the real goal of Bush and privatization nuts.. You think a poor person is going to take their social security money and invest it instead of spend it? Your fucking crazy. Bush will ruin SS i assure you this... The only reason him and his evil republican friends want to privatize social security is to put more strain on the working poor, while making themselves more wealthy. Privatization only serves to help the wealthy, as it lets the wealthy control things...if we privatize ssi, it'll be in the hands of the most wealthy, corrupt, corporations...
Social security is already a huge corrupt institution. The way the government accounting keeps its books would be enough to throw any CEO in prison for years. What makes you think this? If you can afford social security taxes now (much of which goes to bureaucratic costs that would be reduced in the private sector), why wouldn't you be able to afford to put the same money into a private plan? It's my understanding that even if the plan was privatized, the government would still have some degree of control over it. In other words, they could force you to save some money. Many private retirement plans work in a similar way to social security: the money comes right out of your paycheck without you ever seeing it, so there's no risk of people with no fiscal discipline spending it all. Again, how would you, as an 18-year-old, be aversely affected by this? You could still have social security if you wanted, you'd just have more options available. You don't seem like the type who thinks that the GOVERNMENT is comprised entirely of saints, so perhaps you can explain how the "wealthy, corrupt corporations", that at least have to compete with each other for your retirement dollars, would be worse than the "wealthy, corrupt government" that currently has a monopoly on your retirement dollars.
i believe changing ssi right now screws over everyone who has put into it already. Whether or not SSi is a corrupt institution right now, it wont become any less corrupt when its privatized. And i havent been watching fox news lately, but sense when have republicans allowed the government to somewhat regulate SSI?
No one is talking about denying benefits to people who have already paid into the system. That's why the transition costs would be so enormous (to the tune of $1 trillion), because social security benefits would continue to be paid out for a while, even as no social security taxes were coming in. Then your point that privatized social security will be subject to the whims of corrupt people is moot, because that's exactly what is happening now. I haven't heard of any high-profile GOP politicians (although that doesn't mean that none exist) who have actually advocated completely divorcing the government from social security. Bush's plan calls for investing a portion of your retirement funds in private accounts (although that portion will likely become bigger and bigger if the plan is successful), which means that the government will retain at least some control over the system.
Social security has always been inherently flawed. Like all ponzi schemes, someone eventually has to lose. When it started, people drew years and years of benefits after paying in extremely little. At that time, there were something like 16 workers supporting 1 retiree. Not it is down to 4, and dropping. Anyone gotten a social security statement recently? They make it pretty clear that benefits for money paid in will *probably* not be available upon retirement. Like all ideas based on socialism, this corrupt system is doomed to collapse and fail. The private accounts, by the way, would be optional, and constitute a small amount of the total each person would pay in (<5%), if they choose. Unfortunately, there is no "trust fund" and politicians have been raiding social security for years to pay for their ill-begotten initiatives. The Supreme Court has already ruled that individuals are NOT entitled to money they paid into social security. If you are younger than 40, better get a good retirement plan on your own, and don't count on the inept government to take care of you. Unfortunately, the culture of entitlement fostered in this country works against that principle. In my state, public employees who do not have to flush their money down the social security toilet enjoy 10-20% returns on their pensions, which are tied to a mix of stocks, mutual funds, and bonds. Social security could never come close to performing a quarter as well. If you're young, save for your retirement now and take advantage of compounding interest. That is your only hope. Social security will be gone by the time you need it. Really, it provides very little under the best of circumstances anyway. Thanks a lot, FDR (worst president EVER!)
According to Bill Clinton, Social Security was in an "immediate crisis" during most of the 1990's, and the Republicans didn't agree with him. Now, it's George W. Bush telling us that Social Security is in an "immediate crisis" once again, but this time it's Bill's old party, the Democrats, who disagree. WTF? This is why I hate politics.
Me too. Many opponents of social security reform (mostly the Republicans during the 90s, but also some congressional Democrats today) are not interested in the actual policy. They just oppose it for the sake of being contrary.
